Global Weather Changes

Even just two children per couple would be a tremendous benefit. It would mean that the overall population would start to decrease.

^ This.

One child per couple will lead to a lot of unexplained sudden infant death syndromes with females (as has happened in China), resulting in an unbalanced mostly male society.
Two children per couple would be a great deal better in that regard, and it would also lead to a population drop.

The current rise in population is not caused by people having too many children, but because the old don’t die as they are suppose to eh.. cling on to life long after are getting older and older.

In fact in recent years the number of children per women has globally dropped significantly from about 4.95 in 1950-55 to 2.36 in 2010-2015. 2.3 children per women also happens to the magic number where each generation is roughly the same size as the presiding generation. Or put in other words the current rise in population is entirely caused by the increase in average age.

All predictions state that the drop in birth rates will continue, and in many countries it is already as low as 1.3 per women, almost halving the size of each generation compared to the parent generation. If we assume that we can’t continue to get older and older and become immortals, or at least that the rate of increase in average age will flatten out, then it also means that the low child birth rates will catch up with the increase of average age, and that the population will then begin to drop and possibly drop quite drastically!

Most predict that this will happen at about 9 or 10 billion people.

In other words what you are hoping to achieve by imposing laws to reduce the birth rates to 1 or 2 children per women, is already happening and it is happening quite naturally without any laws restricting child births.

The other question is whether or not this is desirable?

Sure overpopulation presents us with many problems, but overpopulation is really mostly a local problem, and there is no reason to believe that the earth can’t sustain a population of 10 billion humans! It will require some changes compared to how we live now, switching to renewable energy, urban farming, more or less self-sufficient skyscrapers etc. but there is no reason to believe it shouldn’t be possible.

Also a drop in population will lead to some massive change in demographics with extremely few young people and an extremely high average age, and that can have just as large negative consequences or perhaps even larger than overpopulation!

SoccerDude28 - 24 July 2014 12:27 PM

For one, electric cars don’t build themselves. Factories need to build them, and that takes energy. Electric cars require electricity to charge. Now maybe that is much less energy than fuel, but multiply that by 7 billion cars and I’m not sure renewable energy can support that.

Sure it can, the earth receives about 5.5×10(pow)24 joules each year from the sun, which is considerable more that the total energy consumption per year for all humans for all purposes. Harvest just a fraction of all that solar energy and our energy needs are more than meet.

And as for factories having to build them, well factories are already building cars, at worst the building part will be neutral compared to the energy and resources currently used to build cars.

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

The current rise in population is not caused by people having too many children, but because the old don’t die as they are suppose to eh.. cling on to life long after are getting older and older.

In fact in recent years the number of children per women has globally dropped significantly from about 4.95 in 1950-55 to 2.36 in 2010-2015. 2.3 children per women also happens to the magic number where each generation is roughly the same size as the presiding generation. Or put in other words the current rise in population is entirely caused by the increase in average age.

Only partly true. The rise in population in the western world is due to the increase in average age (actually, in Europe there’s more or less a status quo at the moment where the population is roughly staying the same despite the increase in age). In third world countries or developing countries, birth rate’s still the main culprit.

All predictions state that the drop in birth rates will continue, and in many countries it is already as low as 1.3 per women, almost halving the size of each generation compared to the parent generation. If we assume that we can’t continue to get older and older and become immortals, or at least that the rate of increase in average age will flatten out, then it also means that the low child birth rates will catch up with the increase of average age, and that the population will then begin to drop and possibly drop quite drastically!

Like I said: this has already happened in Europe (hence the status quo) and is predicted to happen in North America within the next decade.

Most predict that this will happen at about 9 or 10 billion people.

Which will likely be in about 70 years or so.

In other words what you are hoping to achieve by imposing laws to reduce the birth rates to 1 or 2 children per women, is already happening and it is happening quite naturally without any laws restricting child births.

Suggesting we impose those laws was more or less under the assumption that we need to act *now*, and not in 70 years. But I agree that a focus on renewable energy (coupled with more intensive means of recycling as that’s the kind of pollution that will replace CO2 output in the end) is what’s necessary most right now.

The other question is whether or not this is desirable?

If it eventually leads to an equilibrium? Sure, why not?

Sure overpopulation presents us with many problems, but overpopulation is really mostly a local problem, and there is no reason to believe that the earth can’t sustain a population of 10 billion humans! It will require some changes compared to how we live now, switching to renewable energy, urban farming, more or less self-sufficient skyscrapers etc. but there is no reason to believe it shouldn’t be possible.

Also a drop in population will lead to some massive change in demographics with extremely few young people and an extremely high average age, and that can have just as large negative consequences or perhaps even larger than overpopulation!

A population drop like that will turn the situation around and result in a rise in birth rate again. It’ll be a cycle.

Sure it can, the earth receives about 5.5×10(pow)24 joules each year from the sun, which is considerable more that the total energy consumption per year for all humans for all purposes. Harvest just a fraction of all that solar energy and our energy needs are more than meet.

Unfortunately the technology behind solar panels hasn’t really evolved very much over the years. Not only do we need a LOT more solar panels (and solar energy plants), we need to find ways to increase their energy output.
But there’s also wind energy, and we need more of that as well.
Water energy not so much as dams tend to have a devastating impact on the local ecosystem.

And as for factories having to build them, well factories are already building cars, at worst the building part will be neutral compared to the energy and resources currently used to build cars.

^ This.

Iznogood - 24 July 2014 08:26 PM

If we assume that we can’t continue to get older and older and become immortals

Tremble at the power of technology: scientists have already managed to artificially increase the life of lab rats eightfold. If they can transfer that process to humans with even half of the efficiency, we’re looking at a potential human life expectancy of over 300 years…

Only partly true. The rise in population in the western world is due to the increase in average age (actually, in Europe there’s more or less a status quo at the moment where the population is roughly staying the same despite the increase in age). In third world countries or developing countries, birth rate’s still the main culprit.

There are big difference between different parts of the world, but the global average is 2.36 which is (almost) the magic number for a stable generation size, so the only global reason for population rise is the increase in average age. The extra babies born in Africa is cancelled out by the lack of babies born in Europe and East-Asia.

The other question is whether or not this is desirable?

If it eventually leads to an equilibrium? Sure, why not?

Because of the negative effects I mentioned and others I didn’t, besides equilibrium is a myth.

A population drop like that will turn the situation around and result in a rise in birth rate again. It’ll be a cycle.

There is no reason to believe it actually will turn the situation around or solve anything.

In the short term it won’t have any effect.
Even if not a single baby is born in the next 10 years, the sea levels will still continue to rise. So the best thing we can do here and now is prepare for what is coming, eg. what are we going to do when Bangladesh gets flooded by seawater and a 150 mil. Bangladeshi is going to need a new home?

And as for the long term effects there is other and better things we can do, both here and now and in the foreseeable future.

Unfortunately the technology behind solar panels hasn’t really evolved very much over the years. Not only do we need a LOT more solar panels (and solar energy plants), we need to find ways to increase their energy output.
But there’s also wind energy, and we need more of that as well.
Water energy not so much as dams tend to have a devastating impact on the local ecosystem.

Actually a lot has also happened to solar panels and they have both become much cheaper and slightly more effective. Even in northern Europe where the sun doesn’t shine much, it can now be economical viable to place solar panels on the roof of normal houses, as the saves in electricity / sell back value to the power grid will pay for the cost in a reasonable amount of time. There is also a lot of research into making them even cheaper and better, but sure, we need to use all options and not just one. I just used solar energy as an example of how much renewable energy there is actually available.

Iznogood - 24 July 2014 08:26 PM

If we assume that we can’t continue to get older and older and become immortals

Tremble at the power of technology: scientists have already managed to artificially increase the life of lab rats eightfold. If they can transfer that process to humans with even half of the efficiency, we’re looking at a potential human life expectancy of over 300 years…

Sure, and we might even become immortals, but the prognoses still predict that the increase in average age will flatten and that the low birth rates will catch up. It is of course difficult to predict the future, some might even say impossible, so the predictions might be wrong and anything can happen.

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

Sure overpopulation presents us with many problems, but overpopulation is really mostly a local problem, and there is no reason to believe that the earth can’t sustain a population of 10 billion humans! It will require some changes compared to how we live now, switching to renewable energy, urban farming, more or less self-sufficient skyscrapers etc. but there is no reason to believe it shouldn’t be possible.

It’s not just energy. Food and water will most certainly be a problem. Whatever we do, the amount of water on earth can’t be changed. Urban farming needs fertilisers. Fertilisers need natural gas and phosphate among other things. The phosphor mines might be depleted sooner than people think. Etcetera, etcetera.

Sure overpopulation presents us with many problems, but overpopulation is really mostly a local problem, and there is no reason to believe that the earth can’t sustain a population of 10 billion humans! It will require some changes compared to how we live now, switching to renewable energy, urban farming, more or less self-sufficient skyscrapers etc. but there is no reason to believe it shouldn’t be possible.

It’s not just energy. Food and water will most certainly be a problem. Whatever we do, the amount of water on earth can’t be changed. Urban farming needs fertilisers. Fertilisers need natural gas and phosphate among other things. The phosphor mines might be depleted sooner than people think. Etcetera, etcetera.

Good point Karlok.

Also some countries like China are suffering right now from extreme pollution in their water supply which is resulting in tons of new cancer cases

Having more extreme natural disasters and our reliance on nuclear power is an obvious danger as we saw in Fukushima, since nuclear power plants tend to be built close to water supplies. In the US, the drinking water for 49 million Americans could be at risk of radioactive contamination from a leak or accident at a local nuclear power plant.

Natural disasters like flooding will cause people to migrate inwards, which will put a lot of pressure on the food supply. Extreme dryness will limit the water needed to grow plants, which will result in less agriculture.

It’s not just energy. Food and water will most certainly be a problem. Whatever we do, the amount of water on earth can’t be changed.

Then it is a good thing that there is so damn much water on this planet
In fact 71 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered in water, granted about 96.5 percent of that is seawater, but desalination is a relative simple process, it just requires energy!

But even if we ignore this, there is still plenty of fresh water! It is just not always in the right places, and much of it is wasted watering lawns, flushing toilets, in different industries etc.

Fresh water is already and will in the future certainly be a problem in many areas, but it is and will be local problems and not a global shortage of water, and it is a problem that is solvable at least in most areas.

I must admit that I’m not an expert on fertilisers or phosphorus, but I do know that human urine is an excellent source of phosphorus. Recycling might be the key both in general, but also specifically when it comes to fertilizers, instead of just flushing it down the toilet, literally.

SoccerDude28 - 28 July 2014 07:14 PM

Natural disasters like flooding will cause people to migrate inwards, which will put a lot of pressure on the food supply. Extreme dryness will limit the water needed to grow plants, which will result in less agriculture.

Currently there are produced more than enough food for 7 billion people, when people today are starving it is mostly because of poverty and/or different catastrophes like civil war. Most of the agriculture areas in the world like the Europe and the USA have in fact deliberately reduced the amount of food they are producing in order to avoid flooding the market. For example a not insignificant percentage of the farmland in the USA are now producing corn for making biodiesel instead of food.

Now I’m not saying the catastrophic events won’t happen, or that we shouldn’t prepare for these. What I am saying is that global overpopulation is not the direct source of these and that:

Iznogood - 24 July 2014 08:26 PM

there is no reason to believe that the earth can’t sustain a population of 10 billion humans!

It is after all a very big planet with a land mass of 149 million square-kilometre, or about 47 people per square-km with the current population.

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ

doom stories of shortage of water, energy and even over population are full of half truths. Most of these problems are indeed local, are often influenced by political challenges rather than technical ones.

That said, the biggest problem area’s are in fact in developing countries (Africa, Asia) where over population is a big temporary risk that puts a lot of pressure on energy and water usage. As mentioned before, the more people start to use their own heads, rather than listening to doctrines of religions and dictorial regimes, the better things will get also there. It’s simply a matter of time and a strong focus on education.

but desalination is a relative simple process, it just requires energy!

Expensive and only a small part of the solution to the immense water problems. The rising sealevels contribute to the increasing salinization of river, groundwater, soil used for agriculture. Not easy to solve. Every year 1,4 million ha of farmland worldwide is lost because of salinization.

But even if we ignore this, there is still plenty of fresh water!

No, there isn’t. We use more water than ever before and in a few decades those 10 billion people will need far too much. There will be water wars.

It is just not always in the right places, and much of it is wasted watering lawns, flushing toilets, in different industries etc.

The water problem is highly complex and you’re oversimplifying it by talking about minor stuff like flushing toilets and watering lawns.

Fresh water is already and will in the future certainly be a problem in many areas, but it is and will be local problems and not a global shortage of water, and it is a problem that is solvable at least in most areas.

I have no time to continue discussing the subject, and there probably wouldn’t be any point anyway. What you’re saying in effect is that mankind will survive, that we’re smart enough to find (technological) solutions. What I’m saying is that the resources of the earth are finite and humans have the tendency to do nothing until it’s too late. We could start taking scarce resources more seriously NOW, but we don’t.

Airborne infectuous diseases are a LOT more dangerous. And even then, when a highly mortal one arises, everyone will simply start wearing those respirators again (like during the SARS epidemic in China several years ago).

Airborne infectuous diseases are a LOT more dangerous. And even then, when a highly mortal one arises, everyone will simply start wearing those respirators again (like during the SARS epidemic in China several years ago).

I was hinting at bigger picture,

1. Killings in Palestine and around the world.
2. Virus killing humans in Africa and global epidemics.
3. Corporates pushing CSR agenda, Globalwarming part of it.
4. Leading to Carbon taxes as complex financial derivatives in free trading system to make money.
5. Major CSR companies who propagate the agenda are themselves involved in
conflict minerals (watch Blood in the mobile, even Nokia was fraud)
6. I had friends giving huge presentations of FMCGs like Unilever and PNG > CSR,
sustainability reports and their GREEN expenditure etc. Later on Unilver and PNG were
caught for Price fixing to maintain monopoly ripping us the customers lol.
7. Africans and lower pyramid countries are always ripped from their native resources for first world etc.

The pyramid of corporations/countries will sustain.
The lower, third world countries will suffer, and the status quo will be maintained.
Killings and Viruses > Little regard for Human life all around.

CSR,Sustainability is bullshit, global warming is literature built for that.

Do the math , in larger picture at this rate, Tokyo jungle will occur i.e
Green, plants, animals will sustain and humans will vanish.

P.S:
1. T-Virus in Resident Evil was made from this virus, and the fear is that it can
mutate (if it will spread), and fatality rate is 90%.

2. Each Apple/Nintendo device you people buy result in more deaths than you can save from sustaining resources.

1. T-Virus in Resident Evil was made from this virus, and the fear is that it can
mutate (if it will spread), and fatality rate is 90%.

A vast overestimation (unless you’re talking about the T-virus which is fictional). I don’t have the numbers for the current outbreak, but before this one, there had been 1850 reported cases of Ebola (spanning several outbreaks), with 1200 casualties. That’s a fatality rate of 65% on average.

Lol at you guys discussing Climate change while ResidentEvil taking place across
the globe

Diseases have always existed
Wars have always existed
Poverty have always existed
The big taking advantage of the small have always existed
...

If ResidentEvil is taking place, then it has always taken place since the dawn of time, or is in other words what is know as normal.

The simple truth however is that we are now much better at treating diseases than we have ever been before, less people (in %) are dying from diseases than ever before in history. And if some kind of pandemic should hit us, then we are much better equipped to deal with than we ever been before in history.

There are less wars now, than even compared to just a few decades ago, and far less if we long at the long picture, and less people are dying in wars.

A lot of people around the globe is getting out of poverty, and even in places like Africa, which we only hear negative things about in the news, a lot of positive things are also happening, and the lives of many is getting better and better.

I am not saying that we should ignore all other problems and only focus on Climate Changes, in fact part of the point of my previous posts is exactly that we shouldn’t do that, but just like there is no reason to whip up a doomsday mood regarding the Climate Changes, then there is also no reason to do it for diseases etc.

TimovieMan - 03 August 2014 06:46 AM

nomadsoul - 03 August 2014 04:31 AM

1. T-Virus in Resident Evil was made from this virus, and the fear is that it can
mutate (if it will spread), and fatality rate is 90%.

A vast overestimation (unless you’re talking about the T-virus which is fictional). I don’t have the numbers for the current outbreak, but before this one, there had been 1850 reported cases of Ebola (spanning several outbreaks), with 1200 casualties. That’s a fatality rate of 65% on average.

Not to mention that the speed of which it kills makes it impossible for it to spread widely. For any virus or disease to even hope of making it to a global pandemic, it would need to have a larger incubation period and a higher survival rate in order to effectively spread. Ebola is probably the worst candidate of all for a global pandemic.

You have to play the game, to find out why you are playing the game! - eXistenZ